skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We host music events where ~500-2000 people watch a shared stream, and some subset of those people break off into video chat rooms to hang out with each other.

We'd love to pay for JaaS to host the video room portion of events, however the MAU pricing model doesn't work well for events that only last a day or two. Is there any alternative pricing model that charges by the day or minute?
#2 is perfectly reasonable, but I don't understand #1 at all. You don't want to accept other people's changes, which is fine, but then you're also asserting a moral right to prevent them from making those changes on their own? It seems like open source is fundamentally not what you want.
This might be a hard case to make, considering that Facebook itself tells its devs when they are hired to please use an Android phone, as most of their users are on Android, not iOS.
"In a protocols-based system, those who have always believed that Jones was not an honest actor would likely have blocked him much earlier, while other interface providers, filter providers, and individuals could make a decision to intervene based on any particularly egregious act. While his strongest supporters would probably never cut him off, his overall reach would be limited. Thus, those who don’t wish to be bothered with his nonsense need not deal with it; those who do wish to see it still have access to it."

Somebody has very different memories of USENET than I do.

It does not seem possible for a technological solution to work as long as it is trivial and without consequence to set up new online identities.
Ted Cruz agrees:

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1354833603943931905?s=21
Not really, the outrage is over a short of GME being a customer. If the headline was about Firm XYZ without a short in GME paying $100M it wouldn't be as newsworthy.
Yes, many of the success stories of the 90s started out like you mentioned, the second paragraph was often, "then I borrowed 20k from Uncle Bob to buy a used Sparc station.."
Things Low-Code Is Missing
Logically, to the degree that a company really is indifferent to where in the US people live, I'd expect a new equilibrium to develop that's somewhere between the Bay Area and Arkansas. But, as you say, there's a lot of inertia and Google isn't likely to one morning announce an across-the-board pay cut in the Bay Area so they can redistribute it to workers in other locations. But you could certainly imagine things like premiums for new grads shrinking.
Interactive Brokers is a monthly payment. Only if you're VERY active in trading (many trades every month) should you consider IB. But yes, they're very premium service, but I don't think they're for typical investors (who might only trade once or twice a month).

Your standard brokerage firms all work: E-Trade, TD Ameritrace, Schwab, Fidelity etc. etc. Stocks are easy, they all got them covered. It really doesn't matter who you go with for stocks.

Fidelity is a bit better with bond offerings. TD Ameritrade is known for their nicer interface (Think or Swim), especially for options trading. E-Trade IIRC has some good international offerings but still has a pay-per-trade business model.

It depends on what you want. But... stocks are real easy, everyone does stocks just fine. Its more about asking what your secondary investments are going to be: Forex, Options, Bonds, and the like
The whole value prop of Robinhood (from an institutional POV like Citadel) is that providing liquidity to retail traders is valuable because it's lower risk - my guess is that the GME imbroglio blew that assumption out of the water and they got caught with their pants down.
There's https://gitlab.com/jgkamat/jmatrix though it's quite an unofficial hack, and I have no idea if it still works with v2.0.0.

I'd really like to integrate something uMatrix-like (with nice keyboard usage) into qutebrowser some day, but so far I didn't get around to it: https://github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/issues/28

As for password managers, as someone already mentioned in another reply, there are userscripts: https://github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/tree/master/misc/...
The submitted title was "GameStop: Amateur investors continue to outwit Wall Street" but the BBC changed theirs.

For pointers into the massive graph of submissions on this topic, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25933543.
Question: Why shouldn't everyone pull their money out of Robinhood asap?

Thesis:
Suppose a sufficiently large number of people believe that the market is going to crash one day. Robinhood has just shown us that it will consider locking up everyone's accounts and prevent a sell off while the rest of the market cleanly exits after cutting their losses.

Robinhood investors will be left holding the bag once Robinhood reopens trading for the plebians.
Fidelity is explicit that it does not take payment for order flow.
im moving to JPMorgan after today events.
Well there was the attempt at violent overthrow of a government... That's one difference.
Israeli scientists say they've found 'Achilles' heel' of cancer cells
Ask HN: Does the BEAM VM (Erlang, Elixir) stand its resiliance promise?
Tell me a story when it hasn't.
I'm not sure how you hope to avoid this problem. People with more resources can accomplish more. This is true even in a strict meritocracy. All that's modified in a meritocracy is who the top performers are. It doesn't level out the playing field for everyone.
Tesla Model S to get comprehensive refresh, 200mph “Plaid” version
No, I get that it was an assumption. I was just saying how even if I assume they were acting in good faith, it doesn’t make sense to me.
This is simply old school sys admin mastery.
This should definitely get into school books.
It's not the solution itself, it's the approach.
Much like the one in "the martian".
Kudos!
Goodluck with DOJ and SEC investigating and bringing charges against RobbingHood and Citadel. I am not holding my breath.
Sincere thanks for your response. This is probably one of my biggest weaknesses as an engineer so I really appreciate your help.

Right off the bat, I think you hit the nail on the head whereas I have only slowly started to think about how API's are used, rather than just how they're written.

1 is a great point. I'll take some time to get more info on the end to end flows, and I think that will provide some great foundational understanding before even going in.

2. Is a whole knowledge bomb in itself. I hadn't even thought of many of these points. Talking to the consumers is another great idea and I'll make sure to do that.

3. I appreciate the reassurance. Part of why I never built up the skill so far is because it's, frankly, intimidating to start poking at some big system from scratch. Thinking about downstream APIs is a smart angle.

4. I like this point a lot. Seems like a way to level up and start thinking about the bigger picture.

I can already see the benefit of these strategies and how they'll help me develop my understanding. Now I feel equipped to tackle our team API's, not as daunted as I was feeling before. Thanks!
Thank you 'johnbrodie. I updated my message.
She's absolutely right. Ro Khanna on the other hand is just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if it sticks by suggesting [0] a

> financial transaction tax on hedge fund shorting

In practice, that would reduce market functionality because lots of shorts are used to reduce/hedge risk. Two basic examples are short SPY versus long single name and short underlying stock versus long calls.

Really we need limits on short sales beyond a certain % of float (or a certain borrow rate), as well as 13F transparency for institutional short positions.

[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/13548356492500787...
Pandemic has force many/most placed to come up with something remote-capable, at least temporarily. It's a big shift, I absolutely agree. I think it's mostly all that happens though - the "slippery slope to remote" you describe mostly wont happen. Of course we are both speculating.
Yeah, I don’t see how it being fraud leads to the conclusion that it’s not happening.
Actually they halted the opening of new positions. If you have a short position, you can still buy to close.
If they opened another one, it would be at the much higher price and thus fine.
Can anyone explain why Robinhood don’t appear to have an anti class action clause in their terms?

E.g. like this one
https://about.ads.microsoft.com/en-us/resources/policies/cla...
I guess you can add a PR template that says "PLEASE DON'T SEND ME PRS"
I don't know about others but I much prefer running a docker container than a random binary.
Top Developer Tools of 2020
Are you saying that Citadel just lent someone money to close short positions worth a very significant percentage of their total assets? (Melvin having 11 bilion in total assets and Citadel giving them 3 billion).

That's what I was pointing out!
Melvin did not close their shorts(as they said they did), they just got more rope from Citadel, and Citadel was willing to do just that knowing they can manipulate the market.

The narative of Melvin was "Citadel gave us 3 billion dollars, we closed our shorts at a loss, you won wsb, aren't you happy, you won, now leave us alone and stop buying".
That's not what the GP is saying though. You won't even bother posting to fill a job that can't e done remote, so you need to consider the volume of postings as well as the composition.
The thing that confuses me most here is what legal grounds does this proposed suit actually have to stand on? I've not read RH's terms of service, but I'd be surprised if whatever terms it laid out didn't basically have a fuck-you clause in it that would throw out any contract violation suit. Additionally, I'm not sure if there is actually a private cause of action to sue someone for alleged market manipulation (not that I believe the allegations here).
I don't have a firm answer to this, it's more of a feeling that "this is wrong", but here are some possible arguments. I'm not sure they are the best possible arguments, but they're a quick first pass at making the argument.

It is good for society as a whole if people release their work publicly/open source. People will only release their work publicly/open source if it doesn't substantially hurt their potential earnings. So it's best to avoid taking advantage of publicly released work in ways that hurts their earnings (all else being equal).

Profit should go to the person who did the work making something. In this case gitlab did the work, and the person adding ldap here is almost entirely freeloading off of their work to make a profit. That isn't fair - especially when the freeloader has a direct negative impact on gitlab's earnings.

The person adding ldap support is not doing useful work for society, rather they are just doing busy work to redirect a stream of money towards them, that's not good.

And to add to all of these - the person doing this work is a competent engineer. They have lots of other ways to make money that are perfectly ethical, they do not need to resort to this.
Some of those issues might be caused by the underlying QtWebEngine. For others, qutebrowser might be responsible (I'm mainly thinking of https://github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/issues/5376 which might be relevant).

In my day-to-day work, I only use Linux - so the Windows/macOS releases are pretty much "best effort" I'm afraid, until someone steps up to fix platform-specific issues there.
As they say at https://ncatlab.org/nlab, "cobipartisan".
>deep down
>we all know

Starting your post with double-weasel-words really devalues your point, whatever it may be.
And if I have a function executed from user input or defined from configuration.
Thanks for voicing your concerns.

The parallel to Emacs is quite on point. Emacs was a great for text, but it's about time to outgrow that medium.

Indeed, Glamorous Toolkit is a Smalltalk system, but the target is for it to work with all sorts of other technologies (and it does already).

And yes, the claim is to spend that extra work to build tools. I understand how that can appear as coming at an extra cost. But, here is the thing: the budget for figuring the system out is already allocated.

Just in the same way as it was allocated for testing. When automatic testing became a talked-about proposition, people claimed they do not have time to spend doing it because they are already busy clicking around. It turned out that automation freed much of the energy to allow people to focus on more rewarding activities.

Now, it's code reading's turn to be automated. Not all of it will. Code reading is still meaningful in the small.

Glamorous Toolkit is a first technology that shows how this works in practical settings. It's not theoretical. Of course, it comes with a learning cost. We estimate:
- about 1 week to learn how to learn (yes, the technology can be used to learn the technology, too :)), and
- about 1 month to get reasonably fluent with initial analyses.

This is an investment that should be judged like any other investment. The promise we make is that the investment can be utilized over and over in many different circumstances because moldable development is universally applicable.

You should not believe it. We made the technology free and open-source together with all the material around it for people to evaluate it themselves.
By this logic the stock should be shorted even more than it currently is. Why did short sellers close their position if that is the case? Your story is not consistent at all.
The dominant strains of consternation about 2016 were that social media had been abused to propagandize voters into voting for Trump, that the electoral college was a problem, that democratic politicians needed to listen to rural white voters and target them more, and that Clinton was a we-should've-seen-this-sooner hugely flawed candidate.

The vote count being fraudulent, the idea that fellow citizens had stolen the election, wasn't an ongoing discussion in December 2015, January 2016, etc...

It's curious you think that people claiming Russia hacked the vote totals in 2016 were "far more influential" than the people who've been shouting "stop the steal" when only one of those groups of people convinced folks to march and riot to try to "take back" the election. The message against Trump after his election was "resistance," a message which accepts that Trump won the election, but sought to keep people engaged to try to minimize what he could do.

I challenge you to find those people you think were continually organizing events to get Trump's election overturned.
Basic income in my understanding is far from "infinite resources," and a lot closer to ensuring folks have at least McDonalds levels of nutrition available.
While it is quite satisfying to see Ted Cruz and AOC sometimes agree on issues, it hasn't so far been an indicator of legislative victory.
Neither of those use cases apply to me. I haven't even heard of those features before as I don't launch via CLI or use multiple user accounts on my machines.
What's the risk here?

I think it would be totally fair for Robinhood etc to up margin requirements or even drop leveraged instruments. But If the client has $X in their account and they want to buy $X worth of GME or whatever, I don't see how that's a risk to their broker?
In retrospect this seems quite obvious.

This Citadel-Melvin-RH triangle looks super sketchy. The sort of thing that might show up in anti-corruption training at a company that does government or especially defense contracting. In fact if I still worked at a particular employer, this would have been the breakroom and lunch topic for today.
I think it is better to prefer brokers that have their own clearing house

https://investorjunkie.com/stock-brokers/broker-clearing-fir...
I am sorry, can you explain again why MM's would only pull out of selling GME? Because RH only stopped people from buying GME.
That is actually pretty Hilarius and spot on.
"It's offensive" is not actually an argument. There never was a societal consensus that nobody should be allowed to say things that somebody could consider offensive. That's just what some people want, as a means to control other people.
Seems like one was filed already:

https://mobile.twitter.com/LJMoynihan/status/135483683016900...
Thank you 'Avalaxy.
Someone’s tire is bald. You know they are broke.

You arrange for a tire place to come and replace all the tires. But you leave an anonymous note.
You have done good, and seek no reward.

Alternate.

You show up with a camera crew and surprise the person by giving them tires. Everyone glorifies you for your kindness.

End result is the same. Person in need has tires. Yeah.

One is a person helping others.
One is helping others to help themselves to look good.

Both are accomplishing good. There maybe overlap in motive.

Both people giving have earned a reward.
One of the earth, recognition and status.

The others reward is emotional and or spiritual.
Maybe it's for portability. The /proc filesystem doesn't exist on every OS supported by gdb.
You are probably right!

Justin Kan (YC) just posted this: https://twitter.com/justinkan/status/1354861575916515330?s=2...
LOL https://www.americanforests.org/magazine/article/close-up-wi...

I guess they have a few more pixels, so they can claim the "title" :p

Also, don't shoot in yellow snow!
> 10 or 15 years ago people looked at web 1.0, saw many good communities and valuable conversations and said "we need to protect free speech".

> Today people looks at Twitter/Facebook/YouTube/Reddit, see mismanaged cesspools and declare that we need centralized speech control.

...In other words people are completely taking all the amazing things we have today for granted.
Good point. Learned something there.
Mersenne Twister, why is it so popular? Is it because it has a cool name? Is it because it was the best when it came out?

Now, it doesn't seem to have much for it besides its cool name. It is relatively complex, fast but not that fast, good randomness but not that good, and most importantly, it looks like there are RNGs that are better in every aspect. I used xorshifts in the past but now, PCGs seem to be the overall best.

Some people praise its ridiculously long period, but at that point, it is more of a disadvantage because it requires an equally large state.
Some interesting thoughts here, but the issue of the key leaking is still a problem with your proposed protocol. After the first time all these trusted parties come together and reveal the key, someone still has to actually take the key and decrypt the relevant message. After that point, the key exists in plaintext, and it will be very difficult to ensure that it remains secret. Same problem with giving the key only to an AI: The AI needs the key, and it will be difficult to ensure that the AI system isn't hacked, especially if it's the kind of large distributed system that would be required to process everyone's messages.

What you're looking for is a protocol where N parties have to agree in order to decrypt any given message, and agreement to decrypt a particular message doesn't allow them to decrypt any other messages. Here's one that might accomplish that (disclaimer: I am not a cryptographer):

- People can use whatever end to end encryption scheme they like to send their messages, but they must Shamir-split the key into N parts, and send those parts to the relevant authorities.

- We can check that people are obeying this protocol without violating their privacy by the following method: Every time someone sends a message, they xor it with a string of random bits. Then they send it in 2 parts: the xored message, and the original string of random bits. The original message can only be reconstructed from both parts. Each part is sent with a separate key. The N authorities randomly choose one of the two parts to open. They then check that it decrypts properly (messages will include a hash of the contents, so that this is easily checkable, and difficult to fake).

- Of course, people may not trust the authorities to only decrypt one of their message pair. The solution to this is that the list of N authorities is always the same, except for the last one: this is a choice server. People can use whatever choice server they like. However, all choice servers are required to be auditable by both the government and the public. It's the choice server's job to (1) randomly choose 1 message from each pair to decrypt, (2) not release the Shamir-fragment for the key to the other message unless given a warrant by a judge.

Of course, this will be inconvenient, imperfect, and add a heck of a lot of overhead. Some choice servers will be found to be corrupt either in favour of the intelligence agencies, or the criminals, having managed to hide their corruptness from audits.

It also will not stop determined criminals from using their own encryption. It's not all that easy to tell when people are sending encrypted messages to each other, the messages will just look like random bits. There are plenty of places in perfectly innocuous seeming messages to hide random bits. They could even be hidden as noise added to a particular image. A random-bit-hiding arms race is one that cipher-users are inevitably going to win.
I shit you not somebody writes "canceled" on the paper shares and moves them to a separate holding area.
Many things affect the price. Like Elon musk tweeting. Or good sales numbers.
This article made no specific proposal, or did I miss something?
Ah yes they would never mislead investors to their own benefit and manipulate the market for profit something something subprime crisis.
Joel on Software, "Why are Microsoft Office File Formats So Complicated"

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2008/02/19/why-are-the-micros...

They were designed to be fast on very old computers.

They were designed to use libraries.

They were not designed with interoperability in mind.

They have to reflect the history of the applications,
Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, PayPal, etc can fully close your account for “reasons” and people get outraged but there ends up being no consequences. Unfortunately I see the same happening here. It is sad but true.
Note that the issue here is less the part that you quoted and more the two sentences surrounding it, PSD has all of

* unaligned chunks

* aligned chunks with alignment included in size

* aligned chunks with alignment not included in size

The problem is not the specific choice, "Either one of these three behaviours would be fine", it's that "PSD, of course, uses all three, and more."
And how much did that regulation help prevent the Great Recession and Global Financial Crisis of 2008?
They have every incentive to lie
Thank you for the kind words.

It should also be said that Glamorous Toolkit works for other technologies, too.
It's not $5 a trade. Look at IBKR rates; most US trades are well under a dollar.
I'm not sure about that. Higher end trading platforms have automated buy strategies that spread the bids across time so as not to cause the market to spike.
The focus here is on the hustling Bill of the 80s, not billionaire Bill of the 90s.
At what point did those who made the "vague accusation of hacking" storm the United States Capitol in a coup attempt?
> Robinhood probably is also trying to protect most of its users from being the last ones holding the hot potato.

But this could happen with literally any stock that crashes. RH doesn't protect their users in any way from losing money in the stock market so to try to claim they are simply doing this for users seems flimsy.
> why MM's would only pull out of selling GME? Because RH was still allowing buys.

Market makers typically would pull out of the name, not out of one side.

My guess is Robinhood didn't want people opening new positions--long or short--in the name. Blocking people from selling an asset you sold them raises all sorts of issues. But denying them the ability to enter into a new position through your services is on more-stable ground.
Is this really legal? This is the fourth report of such a thing I've heard.
I am curious what happens in the rest of the 2% :).
The SEC fine / lawsuits for that lie are very low relative to what they'd lose on those short positions.